[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200521155143.GE4770@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:51:43 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack memory.
> The only reason why your solution might be better is that if DW DMA driver or
> the DMA engine subsystem changed the dw_dma_slave structure instance passed to
> the dma_request_channel() method, which non of them do. So I'll leave this for
> Mark to decide. Mark, could you give us your final word about this?
Honestly I'm struggling to care either way. I guess saving a bit of
stack is potentially useful.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists